Trav Le Bleu Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Can we attach a poll to this? Is he or isn't he? (And I don't mean "wearing Harmony Hairspray")
Steven Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Can we attach a poll to this? Is he or isn't he? (And I don't mean "wearing Harmony Hairspray") "Wearing Harmony Hairspray". Brilliant Seriously I believe he is dead but not quite in the way described in the last 36-48 hours.
BoneDog Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Were actual Chemical weapons sold to Iraq or the means to make them? Whilst it may seem only a small difference, it is quite important. Personally, I'd like to see the dictatorships of the Middle East give way to democracy, because that is what I believe in. However, if that's not viable and it's a choice of another Iran/Iranian proxy (where elections are not free nor likely to be) or a Western backed dictatorship, then unfortunately I fall to preferring the latter. I agree with alot of what you say, but I think you trust the intentions of our governments alot more than I do! We definitely sold them some chemicals in the mid 80's that could be used to develop weapons and I'm sure that we knew Saddams intentions. I don't know if it is public knowledge whether these chemicals were weaponized or not. This quote is part of detailed export records of biological samples that went to Saddam - "included numerous Type III pathogens, which include Bacillus anthracis, Clostridium botulinum, Brucella abortus, and others." (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html). I think the info is also out there that more shipments were sent even after the Halabja event. I disagree about preferring a western backed dictator to what Iran has already. To get that western backed dictator alot of Iranians would get killed and many more lose their homes and families. Who knows how long it would take to defeat what they have already, they're alot stronger than Iraq were. It could go on for years. I don't know how bad life is in Iran right now but most folk there can go about their everyday business and aren't in danger of being killed and I'm sure they'd be alot worse off overall if we went to war with them.
BoneDog Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 That is far too much of a simplistic view - the country would never be able to do something as a whole because 1.) we'd never all agree on the cause and end result AND 2.) Even if people as a whole did manage a revolution, it wouldn't be long until the same things started happening - there are not enough people with the high standard of moral code to effect what you're after. In order to be elected, potential PM's and Presidents need monetry backers and the media, more than they actually need votes so to speak, so it is natural that they would lean policies towards people that have assisted them in getting into the position in the first place. Add the effects of the chain of command to decisions, it already suggests that no one man has ultimate power and so I would stay clear of a puppet master theory and go more with a clousion of ideas across a mirad of benefactors. Regardless of what you think and how interesting the message your provaying is, I'm trying to sell you the end game realitly which is nothing can be done about it. I was typing a big response about the puppet masters, but I've decided to scrap that and agree that nothing can be done about it I'm trying not to get bogged down in conspiracy talk, but this Bin Laden stuff has got me hyped up again! As for the revolution idea, money talks, and if the majority of the country decided to 'down tools' for a few weeks, demands would have to be met! Perhaps not all demands, but I think we would be able to make things a little better in one or two areas of life.
BoneDog Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Are you really trying to say there is a moral equivalence between the United States democratic electoral process and the Iranian "democratic" electoral process? You must forward your thoughts to those Iranians who supported the Green Revolution in Iran, only to be met by violence from the ruling party. The people behind the Green Revolution in Iran haven't got Irans best interests at heart. Also, alot of the people in that revolution were just setting fire to buildings and petrol stations etc. not helping their cause at all. There were bigger demonstrations in support of their leaders that were not shown on our news stations. And I wouldn't be surprised if outside forces, who were backing the Green leaders, were involved in some of the killing for propaganda purposes, just like those snipers in Venezuala a few years back who the US administration were working with.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 El, if the "take down" was fake, why was it faked in Pakistan? I'm kinda skeptical myself... it's been all a little too "convenient". These are the same special forces that, when trying to release a journalist being held hostage (sadly I forget her name) decided to lob grenades in the building. (Seriously, why would you even take anti-personnel grenades on that kind of mission?) You think someone's trying to make an excuse to take some kind of action against Pakistan? And if so, why?
l444ry Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Why are you guys just willing to readily except the most bogus bullshit possible. Dumped out at sea? No body? DNA evidence supposedly verified? From what, a potato chip he ate in 1983? Such whoppers demand at least a modicum of scepticism. Thought I'd just add some fuel to your argument, Kareem!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
Kitchandro Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 there are some muslims who back terrorism. there are some who dont. Annoying all of them with breaking even a simple tradition like this wouldnt be that wiise if you are trying to put a wedge between those who back terroism and those who dont. The Muslims out there who don't back terrorism would not care if Bin Laden wasn't given a traditional burial. Most Muslims hate Bin Laden because he gives their faith a bad name. I'm sure they will feel an individual like that does not deserve a proper burial, Muslim or not. I won't believe this until I see a more convincing photo of his dead body.
Finnegan Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 They won't risk radicalizing currently moderate, potential sympathizers by appearing celebratory with pictures of his corpse. He clearly is dead or, no doubt, he'd have made some media appearance or other since the announcement. The question, really, is whether or not he died within the last few days or months/years ago, we may never know for sure. Let's be fair, it doesn't really make a massive difference. The more I think about it, the more it doesn't really make any sense that he'd have died years ago and the Americans would opt out of taking credit for it given the enormous political weight it carries for a potential re-election. That said, obviously, if he was already dead then it needn't actually have been the Americans that did the deed, I suppose.
Simmo86 Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 They won't risk radicalizing currently moderate, potential sympathizers by appearing celebratory with pictures of his corpse. He clearly is dead or, no doubt, he'd have made some media appearance or other since the announcement. The question, really, is whether or not he died within the last few days or months/years ago, we may never know for sure. Let's be fair, it doesn't really make a massive difference. The more I think about it, the more it doesn't really make any sense that he'd have died years ago and the Americans would opt out of taking credit for it given the enormous political weight it carries for a potential re-election. That said, obviously, if he was already dead then it needn't actually have been the Americans that did the deed, I suppose. More or less what I was going to post. Why would the Yanks lie about him being dead? If they did this and he came out with video bragging about still being alive Obama would be out quicker than you could say bobs your uncle! The only think to come out of this will be beef with Pakistan, they must of known he was there!
l444ry Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 More or less what I was going to post. Why would the Yanks lie about him being dead? If they did this and he came out with video bragging about still being alive Obama would be out quicker than you could say bobs your uncle! The only think to come out of this will be beef with Pakistan, they must of known he was there! Not taking sides here but why would you, without question, take the word of these people who said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
BoneDog Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Some of you folks are forgetting that he worked with the top brass of CIA and US government etc. If he was still alive, why would he bring out a new video? He would be in on the plan to pretend he's dead and would be living it up on some micro-state island where outsiders can't go. I think he's probably dead though, just sayin! He most likely died years ago when the Americans evacuated that hospital he was in in Pakistan, but they kept it quiet for unknown reasons.
potter3 Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Wasn't there a rumour a couple of years after 9/11 that the SAS were in a position to take him down, but the USA allegedly "wanted the kill". Maybe he was killed then but the US wanted to withhold the information for whatever reason. Still, wouldn't explain why they'd release it now and not before the previous election. I'd like to point out I don't think the above is true, but I do think the whole 'tradional Muslim' burial at sea thing is more than a bit fishy.
l444ry Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Wasn't there a rumour a couple of years after 9/11 that the SAS were in a position to take him down, but the USA allegedly "wanted the kill". Maybe he was killed then but the US wanted to withhold the information for whatever reason. Still, wouldn't explain why they'd release it now and not before the previous election. I'd like to point out I don't think the above is true, but I do think the whole 'tradional Muslim' burial at sea thing is more than a bit fishy. How did they manage to keep his head pointing towards Mecca?
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 I dont get if he was dead ages ago why choose yesterday of all day to announce it ? And also why would helicopters be circuling the premises ?
BoneDog Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 El, if the "take down" was fake, why was it faked in Pakistan? I'm kinda skeptical myself... it's been all a little too "convenient". These are the same special forces that, when trying to release a journalist being held hostage (sadly I forget her name) decided to lob grenades in the building. (Seriously, why would you even take anti-personnel grenades on that kind of mission?) You think someone's trying to make an excuse to take some kind of action against Pakistan? And if so, why? I'm not sure why it would have been faked in Pakistan, probably convenience, as they already have shitloads of operatives there and it would have also been much easier to do near that military base where they would have associates and a place to retreat if loads of militants suddenly appeared. All speculation of course! I'm sure that action of some sort will be taken against Pakistan. There are already lots of drone attacks there, and for every militant killed in drone attacks, something like 40 civilians are killed, so they are already going through it in some parts. I read a good report about the current events in Pakistan and what's likely coming there a week or two ago, i'll try and find it. The report was saying that things would be shortly happening regarding Pakistan to give excuses for more action against them. This was before Bin Laden was allegedly killed. And the story of that CIA guy who was arrested in Pakistan for killing a couple of guys is very dodgy and there is alot of suspicion about that. I read a report somewhere that pointed towards him working with people who recruit suicide bombers. I'll have a look for that aswell.
Kitchandro Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 The people that don't believe it now won't believe it no matter what proof is offered up. That is completely not true. The only reason it's suspicious is they haven't tried to give the public any proof. All I ask for is a real, believable picture. Not a lot to ask for.
The Doctor Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 I dont get if he was dead ages ago why choose yesterday of all day to announce it ? And also why would helicopters be circuling the premises ? 1) - Maybe america weren't aware he was dead until a couple of days ago, that they went to that complex intending to kill bin laden and found him already dead. 2) - Because OBL was an evil ****-nugget, needed choppers on site to strafe him if he snuck out and tried to make a break for it.
Itsthejoeker Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 I dont get if he was dead ages ago why choose yesterday of all day to announce it ? And also why would helicopters be circuling the premises ? The illuminati was founded on May the 1st 1776 - If you believe in that bullshit
Babylon Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 That is completely not true. The only reason it's suspicious is they haven't tried to give the public any proof. All I ask for is a real, believable picture. Not a lot to ask for. IF you were president, would you care what the conspiracy theorists thought. Or would you care more about the possibility that showing a gruesome photo could antagonise people more? If you want to fake a killing there are plenty of easier ways to go about it. A cave in the afghan mountains for instance. Anyway, I don't really care.
BoneDog Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Thought I'd just add some fuel to your argument, Kareem!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg It wasn't long after that interview that Bhutto herself was assassinated. Here's an interesting radio prediction from the late great William Cooper (ex naval intelligence) less than 3 months before 9/11. All the sceptics should listen to this from 0.58 onwards. Five months after this broadcast he was assassinated by cops on his driveway. It was an illegal operation too, because the agents involved in his death didn't even notify the local police boss of what they were about to do. (can't remember the ins and outs) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA Listen carefully to what he says regarding the CIA not being able to find Laden, while some reporters were able to find him!! IMPORTANT!! And don't forget that when this camera crew went into Laden's hideout he was already the most wanted man on the FBI's wanted list. IMPORTANT!!
The Doctor Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 El - you're clearly a guy who loves his conspiracies & sometimes yes the truth is completely different to what's been said but a fair while of the time the story released to the media is the truth.
Kitchandro Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 IF you were president, would you care what the conspiracy theorists thought. Or would you care more about the possibility that showing a gruesome photo could antagonise people more? If you want to fake a killing there are plenty of easier ways to go about it. A cave in the afghan mountains for instance. Anyway, I don't really care. You care enough to reply People are already antagonised. I don't really see the issue there. There will definitely be retaliation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but equally you can't just believe that there are no conspiracies in the World. They should want to prove to their own people (not conspiracy theorists), some of which are desperate for revenge and closure.The American governement is famous for conspiracies, there's a reason for that, and the way they've gone about this is a bit supicious, especially dumping his body in the ocean so quickly. That's something a murderer might do to cover up a crime. I'm not saying he definitely isn't dead, or he was definitely dead ages ago, I'm just saying the proof we've been given is a bit inconclusive.
BoneDog Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 The illuminati was founded on May the 1st 1776 - If you believe in that bullshit Why wouldn't you believe that shit? The Bavarian Illuminati is not a myth. They were officially created on that day, it's no secret. Also, wasn't Hitler supposedly killed on May 1st? And the royal wedding the other day was the same day as Hitlers wedding
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.